RAW vs JPEG Debate

[MikeR]

Since this was so fun, I'm strongly considering starting up another thread so we can discuss whether Canon or Nikon is the "better" camera, and maybe another one about whether Tamron is better than Sigma. I'm still confused about which way to go. Please help me.

Then we can post close ups of worthless things like batteries and charts to measure shapness instead of the things we really shoot. I belive the term for this illness is "measurebate" :lmao:

 

[sothoth]

I have a Leica Digilux 1 that shoots JPG and TIFF. So there.

You Leica people... always bragging about everything German. Next thing you know, you're going to tell us that Zeiss lenses are good.

 

[benjikan]

Since this was so fun, I'm strongly considering starting up another thread so we can discuss whether Canon or Nikon is the "better" camera, and maybe another one about whether Tamron is better than Sigma. I'm still confused about which way to go. Please help me.

The shape of my index finger is more naturally rounded and therefore better for capturing an image at least 2 nano seconds faster than most people on average..How is that?

 

[lifeafter2am]

The shape of my index finger is more naturally rounded and therefore better for capturing an image at least 2 nano seconds faster than most people on average..How is that?

I got one better! My pinkie fingers are crooked (genetic family trait), this allows a tighter fit and better grip on my camera. I can hold the camera SOOO much longer than any of you!!! :lmao::lmao:

 

[Nimitz]

Ok, I just couldn't resist providing my 2 cents after reading everyone's opinions. Maybe it's just because I learned photography from someone who has been shooting professionally longer then most of us on this forum have been alive but the one thing he taught me when digitial became of age & pros were switching and/or adding it to their bag of tricks was this:

"Taking an image and then 'fixing' it later in PS is not photography. Learn how to use light, posing & exposure to create stunning images in the camera - this is photography and BTW, you'll become a better photographer because of it. Continue to post process to fix your mistakes and you'll never learn anything. Use all that time you spend sitting in front of a computer using PS to go out and shoot and actually become better at it!"

As a side note, I know most 'younger' folks can't even imagine a world in which technology is not the focus of everything: I-phone, I-pod, 1080 plasma TV, laptops with terabytes of storage ... but its akin to giving a grammer school child a calculator & teaching them how to use it without ever teaching them basic math. Ever watch a teenager behind the counter at MacDonald's try to make change without looking at what the register said?

Don't get me wrong - technology is a wonderful thing but I think some times we tend to use it as a shortcut because learning the underlying principles for which technology lets us ignore is hard. "AstroPhysics for the common man"

enough rambling ...

 

[brettrobsonphotography]

Just came past this thread, I shoot in both RAW and JPEG ...reasons being is the shot was crap in JPEG the raw allows me to edit the image settings, ie white balance, exposure, aperture via Lightroom, sometimes I feel this is cheating however well thats 21st century technology for you

Also when doing model shoots its easy to grab the jpegs off the cf media and burn straight to cd

 

[jstuedle]

"Taking an image and then 'fixing' it later in PS is not photography. Learn how to use light, posing & exposure to create stunning images in the camera - this is photography and BTW, you'll become a better photographer because of it. Continue to post process to fix your mistakes and you'll never learn anything. Use all that time you spend sitting in front of a computer using PS to go out and shoot and actually become better at it!"

I agree, there is nothing that improves upon getting it right in the camera. This is why I'm a firm believer in teaching a student of photography with a manual film camera and a hand-held light meter. There is nothing that reinforces taking your time and understanding the fundamentals than waiting for that roll of film to come back and finding out you lost the whole roll to some minor thing overlooked. Like shooting ISO 800 at 64.

 

[guppyman]

Thanks for the great information here

 

[Nimitz]

jstuedle - you are so right. That is the way I learned to shoot as well. I doubt too many of the younger folks remember a tennis pro by the name of Bobby Riggs (the famous Billy Jean King match) but even in his fiftys he used to travel around the country and beat so-called tennis pros with a broom just do demonstrate that its not your equipment that makes you a great tennis player but your skills.

I actually read a post a short while ago in a thread which was discussing how a certain style of images were ceated where not one, but several posters 'agreed' that it was post processing because 'you could never capture that type of image with the camera alone". The images in question were just these close-up black & white portraits with very sharp contrast and hard highlights - very well done - I might add, but certainly not any PS magic ... just good old fashioned creative photography!

 

[skieur]

Ok, I just couldn't resist providing my 2 cents after reading everyone's opinions. Maybe it's just because I learned photography from someone who has been shooting professionally longer then most of us on this forum have been alive but the one thing he taught me when digitial became of age & pros were switching and/or adding it to their bag of tricks was this:

"Taking an image and then 'fixing' it later in PS is not photography. Learn how to use light, posing & exposure to create stunning images in the camera - this is photography and BTW, you'll become a better photographer because of it. Continue to post process to fix your mistakes and you'll never learn anything. Use all that time you spend sitting in front of a computer using PS to go out and shoot and actually become better at it!"...

Well, I have probably been shooting professionally as long or longer than your friend has, and frankly PS is no different than the time that a lot of photographers spent in the darkroom. We did composites and multiple exposures and special effects and much more than simply correcting mistakes in the darkroom. Photoshop is used more to correct the limitations of digital processing than it is to correct mistakes. Irrespective, the use of Photoshop trains the eye to look carefully at colour, focus, contrast, resolution etc. and if you learn it by using Photoshop that skilll is transfered to being used when you look through the viewfinder. A photographer who rationalizes being perhaps computer illiterate will not become a better photographer by ignoring Photoshop and simply shooting digital shots with a camera.

skieur

 

[jstuedle]

Photoshop IMO is not for fixing the image, but for enhancing it. We all should strive to get the best image we can out of the camera. Do it right in the "box" and the post work-flow will go much easier and much more quickly.

 

[Jon, The Elder]

A photographer who rationalizes being perhaps computer illiterate will not become a better photographer by ignoring Photoshop and simply shooting digital shots with a camera.

I have to agree. As you progress in the craft, many people come to appreciate the extra latitude that shooting RAW gives the photographer.

As dozens have mentioned (myself included), it really depends on what your final goal is for the finished image. See #'s 6,10,11

Raw gives you that little extra 'edge' in post processing which is a advantage in many cases.

The more you get into serious digital photography, the sooner you realize that computer use is a necessary discipline that goes hand-in-hand with the photo taking portion of the entire process.

 

[benjikan]

Well, I have probably been shooting professionally as long or longer than your friend has, and frankly PS is no different than the time that a lot of photographers spent in the darkroom. We did composites and multiple exposures and special effects and much more than simply correcting mistakes in the darkroom. Photoshop is used more to correct the limitations of digital processing than it is to correct mistakes. Irrespective, the use of Photoshop trains the eye to look carefully at colour, focus, contrast, resolution etc. and if you learn it by using Photoshop that skilll is transfered to being used when you look through the viewfinder. A photographer who rationalizes being perhaps computer illiterate will not become a better photographer by ignoring Photoshop and simply shooting digital shots with a camera.

skieur

I totally agree with your analogy...

 

[RacePhoto]

No debate. Raw is better.

I shoot sports, I shoot hundreds or thousands of pictures in a weekend. I see no use in batch post processing, since I don't have time to edit and process each individual image. I shoot JPG.

I delete a good 1/3rd of the images, just because I reject them or they are flawed. Another 1/3rd go into the, maybe bin. Then I have a few hundred to look at and pick the best 5 or 10. THEN I edit those "good" photos.

How much space will 2000 raw pictures take vs 2000 JPGs?

Did I mention, RAW is better for many applications and editing control. Just not for me. :thumbup: